Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1996.09.09CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES September 9, 1996 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Ellis on Monday, September 9, 1996 at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Staff Present: MINUTES - AGENDA FROM THE FLOOR Commissioners Deal, Galligan, Key, Wellford and Ellis Commissioners Coffey and Mink City Planner, Margaret Monroe; City Attorney, Jerry Coleman; Senior Engineer, Donald Chang; Fire Marshal, Keith Marshall The minutes of the August 26, 1996 meeting were approved as mailed. Item #4, 1128; the applicant asked that the item be continued to the September 23, 1996 Planning Commission Meeting and Item #6, 3 & 150 California, was placed at the end of the action items. The order of the agenda was then approved. There were no public comments. ITEMS FOR STUDY APPLICATION FOR A CONDOMINIUM PERMIT AND TENTATIVE MAP FOR A FOUR UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM AT 1408 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED R-3, (FRANK CONTI. PROPERTY OWNER AND JOHN BELZ APPLICANT) A) CONDOMINIUM PERMIT Requests: why is the 16 SF under roof eave not included in lot coverage; explain use of 13' long X 3' wide deck (very narrow) what is the useable area of these decks (dimension from face of building to interior of rail); show similar metal roofs in area; site plan and landscape plan should be consistent; show designated guest parking; is there sewage capacity at Hillside and El Camino Real, can this project be accommodated; will ors Elm trees be protected; what is the sighte line for ingress and egress off El Camino Real; why artificial what is the maintenance proposed for the astro turf; what maintenance problems did the city incur with the astro turf on Broadway near Carolan Avenue; survey at each floor to ensure height limits met proposed project very close to maximum height; does plan -1- Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 9, 1996 address variations in building materials; Item set for action September 23, 1996, if all information is available. B) TENTATIVE MAP Requests: letter showing Caltrans will accept drainage. If all necessary information is received, item set for September 23 1996. AN APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR TAKE-OUT AT 1118 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED C-1 SUBAREA A, (LOUISA KAO, PROPERTY OWNER AND SMOOTHIE KING. APPLICANT). Requests: material of the serving container, paper, foam; reason no application for tables/chairs; how do they intend to use the 500 SF of sales area, why such large preparation area when the sales area is 500 SF; where are the bathroom facilities for employees and customers located; what sales items are kept in the cooler; contact City of San Jose to verify their experience with the San Jose site; Item. set for action September 23, 1996. ITEMS FOR ACTION The applicants were advised that only 5 of the 7 Commission members were seated this evening. The rules of procedure for the Commission require a quorum (4) affirmative votes of the whole commission in order to pass a motion on action items. The Chair asked if any of tonight's applicants would like to delay their action until a full commission is seated. None of the applicants came forward. 3. APPLICATION FOR A HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AT 1646 ESCALANTE DRIVE, ZONED R-1, (ANGELA MONG, PROPERTY OWNER AND ROBERT FAN, APPLICANT). Reference staff report, 9.9.96 with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. two conditions were suggested. Chairman Ellis opened the public hearing. Robert Fan, 580 Market Street, San Francisco, was present representing the applicant and explained that the addition is needed to accommodate her aging mother and a helper. They are not asking for a variance or an exception and the building meets code. Photographs depicting the addition and views from adjacent properties were entered into the record. Ms. Hurley, 1615 Hunt Drive spoke in opposition to the application expressing concern that the last addition to the house was visible from her back yard, this addition does not block her view but is not nice to look at. There were no other comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Deal noted that this will not block the adjacent views. Those views are already blocked by existing vegetation. He then moved to approve this application, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1) that the addition, as built, shall conform to the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped July 25, 1996; and 2) that this project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1995 Edition as amended by the City of Burlingame. -2- Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 9, 1996 The motion was seconded by C. Key and passed on a 5-0-2 (Cmsrs. Coffey and Mink absent) voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. Commission thanked the applicant for putting up the poles showing the envelope of the addition for their site inspection. They then discussed the application noting it is an appropriate structure within the limits of the code and is not inconsistent with the neighborhood. It was related, for the record, that this is a R-1 zone and multiple family dwellings are not allowed. 4. APPLICATION FOR A SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE AND A PARKING VARIANCE AT 1128 CABRILLO AVENUE, ZONED R-1, (JOEL AND JACKIE SKELTON, PROPERTY OWNERS AND APPLICANTS). CONTINUED TO SEPTEMBER 23, 1996 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. 5. APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR TAKE-OUT AT 1400 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL AREA, (PETERS. UMLAND, UMLAND PROPERTIES, PROPERTY OWNER AND MICHAEL T. O'LEARY, BURLINGAME SMOKE SHOP, APPLICANT) Reference staff report, 9.9.96, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Seven conditions were suggested for consideration. Chin. Ellis opened the public hearing. Michael O'Leary, explained his application stating that his cigar sales moved to another site and it is his intention to increase his sales, slushies in the summer months, coffee and hot chocolate in the winter months. However, he does not intend to develop a coffee shop. He felt that these new products would be 10 to 15 percent of his gross sales. If not profitable he will remove them. There were no other comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission noted the fact that take-out is distinctly different from a food establishment and discussed limiting the sales to a percentage of take-out. This would be difficult to enforce. The take-out service use would run with the land, the same as a use permit, and limit on a particular type of item might be hard to enforce on the next business endeavor. C. Galligan noted this is not an unreasonable request, it is a minor use and does not change the theme of the business. He then made a motion to approve the application with the following amended and added conditions: 1) that the conditions of the City engineer's June 29, 1996 memo shall be met; 2) that the business may be open Monday through Sunday 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. with a maximum of three employees on site at any one time, including the proprietor; 3) that the food items sold from this site shall be limited to those which are manufactured off the site and prepackaged except for frozen slushies, coffee and hot chocolate prepared on -site and sold individually for consumption on or off the premise; and which shall not exceed 15% of the gross sales from the site; 4) that the applicant shall purchase and maintain at least daily, more often if necessary, a trash receptacle inside the door to the store and on the sidewalk along Burlingame Avenue at a location approved by the City Engineer and Fire Department; 5) that on the street the convenience store operator shall purchase and install the -3- Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 9, 1996 trash receptacle selected by the Burlingame Avenue Streetscape Study, and this container shall be in place no later than November 1, 1996; 6) that the applicant shall remove once -a -day or more frequently, if determined to be necessary by the City, all take-out debris on the sidewalk, in the gutter, and in planters, in front of the store along Burlingame Avenue and within 50' of the store in each direction; and 7) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the municipal code of the 1995 edition California Building and Fire Code as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Key and failed 2-3-2 by roll call vote. (Cmsrs. Deal, Wellford and Ellis dissenting and Cmsrs. Coffey and Mink absent) Appeal procedures were advised. C. Galligan then noted this is a code enforcement issue needing resolution. He then made a motion directing staff to advise applicant that sales of take-out items is to cease and desist within 15 days from effective date of action. The motion was seconded by C. Wellford and passed 5-0-2 on a roll call (Cmsrs. Coffey and Mink absent) vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 7. APPLICATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONDOMINIUM PERMIT AND A HEIGHT EXCEPTION AT 1755 CALIFORNIA DRIVE, ZONED C-1 WITH AN R-4 OVERLAY, ( RICO HUO, ACT DEVELOPMENT, PROPERTY OWNER AND APPLICANT). Reference staff report, 9.9.96, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Two conditions were suggested for consideration. A letter from California Drive Partners, the adjacent property owner, in support of this amendment was read into the record. Chin. Ellis opened the public hearing. Rico Huo, the applicant was present. He explained the reasons for the height increase, noting for the record that this property is zoned C-1 with an R-4 overlay and the height limit in the R-4 is 75 feet, in addition the adjacent uses are commercial so there is no negative impact on the adjacent properties. He then asked the Commission to consider this request favorably. There were no other comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Deal noted that he wished this had not needed to be reviewed again but that it should be evaluated now as if it was a part of the original project submittal. The slope of this lot combined with the drainage problems known to be in this area is a justification for this request so the project will not have to rely on a sump pump. The slope at the rear also reduces the size of this building relative to the one behind it; the appearance of the street because of the distance it is setback will make it appear to be closer to 35'; the design of the roofs will not cause a shadow to be cast on adjacent properties. He then made a motion to approve this amendment application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: 1) that the all of the conditions of the condominium permit approved February 21, 1995 shall be in effect and enforced except that: a. the height on the plans date stamped December 19, 1994, shall be amended to allow a maximum height of 36'-7"; b. condition number 2 shall be amended to allow that the overall height for each building, as measured from the top of curb at the front of the lot shall not exceed a peak elevation on Building of A of 45.6', Building B of 45.6', KIM Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 9, 1996 Building C, 45.6' and Building D, 46.6 as shown on the plans date stamped August 15, 1996; 2) that the project shall meet all of the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes 1995 edition as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Galligan and approved 5-0-2 voice vote (Cmsrs. Coffey and Mink absent). Appeal procedures were advised. APPLICATION FOR A FINAL CONDOMINIUM MAP FOR THREE UNITS AT 612 PENINSULA AVENUE, ZONED R-3, (ROBERT J. RUSSELL, JR., PROPERTY OWNER AND R. C. HUTTON & ASSOCIATES APPLICANT) Reference staff report, 9.9.96, with attachments. Sr. Eng. Chang discussed the request, reviewed criteria, comments, and study meeting questions. Chin. Ellis opened the public hearing. There were no comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Key noted the conditions relating to the map have been met. She then made a motion recommending approval of this Final Condominium Map to City Council The motion was seconded by C. Galligan and passed 5-0-2 voice vote (Cmsrs. Coffey and Mink absent). 6. APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AMENDMENT FOR ALTERNATIVE PARKING LOCATIONS FOR EMPLOYEES AT 3 & 150 CALIFORNIA DRIVE, ZONED, ZONED, C-2, SUBAREA D, (JOSEPH D. & MARY L. PUTNAM, TRS, PROPERTY OWNERS AND JOSEPH PUTNAM, APPLICANT). Since the applicants were not present at the beginning of the action items C. Ellis again noted for the record that only 5 of the 7 Commission members were seated this evening. The rules of procedure for the Commission require a quorum (4) affirmative votes of the whole commission in order to pass a motion on action items. The Chair asked if any of tonight's applicants would like to delay their action until a full commission is seated. The applicants stated they had been previously notified and would like to proceed. Reference staff report, 9.9.96, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request,reviewed the conditions and study meeting questions. She described a possible condition which would allow the Commission to impose a fine if the off -site parking area proposed here were not used by employees at 3 California. The CA commented that they would prefer the condition, if added, require the applicant to reimburse the city for the cost of inspections if they were found to be non -compliant. Commissioners noted that some of the information requested regarding employee parking for other car sales businesses in this same ownership in this area was not provided. It was noted that this code enforcement item resulted from a complaint from a neighbor affected by on street parking by employees at 3 California in front of his house. -5- Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 9, 1996 Chin. Ellis opened the public hearing. Bob Lanzone, 939 Laurel Street, San Carlos, attorney for the applicant, Meal Martin, 1640 Laurel Street, San Carlos, planning consultant for the applicant, Kent Putnam, 1435 Cortez, store manager and Joe Putnam, owner, were present to answer questions. Mr. Lanzone suggested that rather than have the commission impose monetary fines for non-compliance, a more effective approach would be a code enforcement ordinance which would impose fines based on a schedule on violators. He noted that this was a code enforcement item, and that they were trying to find a solution when they suggested the parking at 150 California. This site has space for the 25 to 28 employee cars and gets them off the site where there is not enough room to accommodate them. It is a block away. They asked if they could mark the employee cars with a mirror or dash tag since driving a new car is a perk that they give the employees. Their presentation went on to note that this requirement for 28 employee parking spaces on site was the result of a change in use on the site (addition of office area); an area which has always been used for record storage. They will do all they canto get employees to park in the 150 California garage including put it in the employees manual, have the manager on site remind them, and instruct new employees to use the area. They addressed concern about employees not using 150 California when weather was bad; manager indicated that the use will not be an option, for employees the distance is a minor issue and they will have an easy place to park which is secure. Peter Young, 825 Jefferson Court, spoke in opposition. He thought that this unusual arrangement would increase the problem in the neighborhood since the employees would have to park further away. He felt that the proposed conditions did not address the issues of road testing, leaving the roll up doors open late at night, sometimes on week -ends, with bright lights on and noise; and off loading vehicles in the travel lane on Peninsula Avenue. Solutions to these problems need to be included. Signage on the building is not adequate and customers for parts also park on Jefferson, although there is some customer parking on site. Finally the applicant has not demonstrated an ability to comply with the city and he is certain there will also be a problem with this permit. He feels violations should be strictly enforced with monetary fines beginning now. In response to a commissioner's inquiry he noted that the residents do not want a neighborhood parking permit system because of the inconvenience to them (they only get two permits); they should not have to pay a price for these employees using their street. In response the applicant noted that if they complain to management they do their best to respond. Other car dealerships employees in the area also park on the street. They noted that they do not have a lot of control over where the delivery trucks choose to off load their vehicles. There were no other comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Galligan noted that people who live next to a commercial area often have a problem but that the commercial area was there when he bought his house. The delivery trick should not be off-loading in Peninsula and the applicant's attorney should suggest how the applicant can get this to stop. Off site parking is usually viewed as a problem when the use on a site is increased beyond the parking available on the site, this is not the case, on site parking is provided as required. It is inappropriate to vest the Planning Commission with the ability to levy monetary fines, this should be a part of a code enforcement ordinance. There are strong business reasons to transfer 25 parking spaces down the street to insure that employees are adequately handled and the business owner assures that they will be used. Therefore, noting the facts in the staff report and the conditions stated including amending condition 3 to be that there would be designated 3 employee parking spaces provided at 3 California I Me Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 9, 1996 and 25 employee parking spaces provided at 150 California and that each employee vehicle will be denoted as such, he made a motion to approve this special permit amendment, by resolution,with the following conditions: 1) that all the conditions of the March 3, 1986 conditional use permit shall remain in effect except for condition number two which shall be eliminated; 2) that if at any time 3 California Drive and 150 California Drive cease to be in common ownership either: (1) the owner of the 3 California Drive shall provide written assurance that the new owner of 150 California Drive will provide employee parking spaces as required by this permit; or (2) this permit shall be automatically revoked, without notice and hearing, and the required employee parking as required by this permit shall be provided on the 3 California Drive site; 3) that the car sales/repair business owner at 3 California Drive shall provide 3 parking spaces for his/her employees at 150 California Drive and that this number of employee spaces shall be increased as the number of employees on the site at 3 California Drive is increased and none of the additional employee spaces shall be provided in a tandem configuration; 4) that the 25 parking spaces provided for employees of 3 California located in the parking garage at 150 California Drive shall be located together within the parking garage and clearly posted or marked on the cement that they are designated as reserved for employees of 3 California Drive; and 5) that an aggressive program requiring employees at 3 California Drive to park in the designated spaces at 150 California shall be implemented by site management immediately upon granting this conditional use permit; and that this program shall include enforcement by the employer and a designation on each employee's vehicle at 3 California's car to denote that s/he is parking in the designated area of the parking garage to facilitate inspections. The motion was seconded by C. Deal and approved 4-1-2 on a roll call vote (C. Wellford dissenting and Cmsrs. Coffey and Mink absent) vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 9. APPLICATION FOR A NEGATIVE DECLARATION, ND-480P DESILTING AND CHANNEL, EXCAVATION, MILLS CREEK, MAINTENANCE REPAIR, ZONING UNCLASSIFIED (CITY OF BURLINGAME PROPERTY OWNER AND APPLICANT, A)NEGATIVE DECLARATION Reference staff report, 9.9.96, with attachments. CP Monroe discussed the request, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments, and study meeting questions. Chin. Ellis opened the public hearing. There were no other comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Key noted that on the basis of the Initial Study and comments made at the hearing there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. She then made a motion to recommend approval to the City Council. The recommendation was seconded by C. Galligan and approved 5-0-2 voice vote (Cmsrs. Coffey and Mink absent). -7- Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 9, 1996 VIII. PLANNER REPORTS - CP Monroe reviewed the September 3, 1996 City Council regular meeting. IX. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:20 p.m. MINOTES9.9 In Respectfully submitted, Karen Key, Secretary